Abstract

This article reconstructs the path of the German economist Friedrich A. Lutz (1901–75) to American economics. The correspondence with his former teacher Walter Eucken, the founder of the Freiburg school, constitutes a crucial yet unexplored source for the article. Through Lutz's case, this article demonstrates the growing gulf between German and Anglo-Saxon economics during the late 1930s. In his native Germany, Lutz was trained in methodologically and institutionally focused economics, which differed fundamentally from the mathematical economics dominating Anglo-Saxon academia. He realized that an academic career in the United States would be impossible if he did not adapt to the new methods and if he did not abandon the methods of the German tradition. This gave rise to his internal Methodenstreit. After his emigration in 1938, he constantly experienced doubts and tensions because he was convinced that without considering institutions, mathematical economics could never explain the occurrence and essence of macroeconomic phenomena. Despite his stellar career at Princeton, it was only after his move to Zurich in 1953, where he taught history and theory of socioeconomics for the rest of his life, that Lutz could reconcile this internal Methodenstreit.

1. Introduction

Friedrich August Lutz (1901–75) made a stellar career as a professor of money and banking at Princeton. According to his Princeton file, “Professor Lutz [was] an outstanding scholar in three fields—economic theory, money and banking, and international trade and finance. He [had] an international reputation in all three fields.”1 Lutz's path to international reputation was anything but easy. As a student of Walter Eucken (1891–1950), he was preoccupied with methodological struggles against the still-dominant historical school in his native Germany and attempted to establish communication with the Anglo-Saxon economic community. The historical school's hostility toward abstract-deductive theory isolated German economic research more and more from the developments of Anglo-Saxon economics.

My article is a case study of how a German economist educated in an academic environment still dominated by the historical school became part of American economics and contributed to the consolidation of economics on both sides of the Atlantic following his return to postwar Europe. I demonstrate that emigration to the United States (initially) gave rise to Lutz's internal Methodenstreit. It is a projection of the Methodenstreit, the debate over methods that took place between the German historical school and the Austrian school of economics. In contrast to his German-speaking peers from Austria such as Oskar Morgenstern, Friedrich A. Hayek, Gottfried Haberler, and Fritz Machlup, who were all trained and later supported a more vigorous and even mathematical theorization of economic phenomena, Lutz was unable to fully accept the new mathematical methods: on the one hand, he did not possess the mathematical skills; on the other hand, he was concerned about mathematical treatments that neglected the relevance of institutions to explain macroeconomic phenomena. Lutz realized that a research program like the one of the Freiburg school, or of German economic thought more generally, heavily based on methodological and institutional considerations, was “out of fashion” in Anglo-Saxon economics. Despite his critical assessment of the mathematical treatment of economic phenomena, Lutz was able to write and teach with mathematical clarity in his verbal argumentation (Lenel 1976: 3; Ritzmann 1976: 79). In this vein, Lutz's approach was an example of Friedrich A. Hayek's claim that mathematical procedures did not increase precision in economics per se, but rather that verbal precision in the explanation of economic phenomena ought to be achieved before any theory could (or should) be expressed in the language of formal mathematics (Hayek [1942] 2010: 86).

This article delineates three reasons why Lutz's case study should be relevant for the transatlantic history of economics after the Second World War. First, his publications in the area of monetary economics, monetary policy, and international monetary theory established him as an expert in the field of money and banking. The American Economic Association appointed Lutz as a coeditor with the Chicago economist Lloyd Mints of the selection committee for the volume Readings in Monetary Theory, whose purpose was to republish the leading articles in this area (American Economic Association 1951). Furthermore, on the eve of the Cambridge-Cambridge controversy, Lutz was the chair of the program committee of the famous 1958 Corfu conference titled “The Theory of Capital” held by the International Economic Association. Lutz, jointly with Douglas C. Hague, published and wrote the introductory essay, “The Essentials of Capital Theory,” to the proceedings of the conference. Among the active participants were Paul Samuelson, Robert Solow, Evsey Domar, John R. Hicks, Nicholas Kaldor, and Piero Sraffa (Lutz and Hague 1961).

Second, Lutz was very well connected to top-tier American economists, and his connections were the reason why Hayek thought of Lutz when envisaging the appropriate person to write the US version of The Road to Serfdom (Caldwell 2011: 303). Further evidence for his networking acumen is provided by Lutz's membership in the Bellagio Group, where he discussed topical theoretical and practical problems of international monetary policy alongside William J. Fellner, Gottfried Haberler, Peter B. Kenen, Charles P. Kindleberger, Fritz Machlup, and Robert A. Mundell (Dal Pont Legrand and Hagemann 2013: 249).

Third, he has been remembered as an inspiring teacher who was able to explain complex phenomena in a clear and straightforward manner, something that one of his students, the later Fed chair Paul Volcker, described as formative for his decision to start studying monetary economics (Silber 2013: 17). “But it was only money and banking and monetary policy that really caught my attention” (Volcker and Harper 2018: 17–18).

2. The German Methodological Years

Lutz was born on December 29, 1901, in Saarburg (now Sarrebourg) in Alsace-Lorraine, then at the Western periphery of the German Empire—two years after Friedrich A. Hayek and Wilhelm Röpke and one year before his future Princeton colleague Oskar Morgenstern. Lutz belonged to this “fin-de-siècle generation” born on the eve of the new century. The tragedies of the Great War and the instability of the Weimar Republic shaped his economic and political thinking (Kolev and Köhler 2022: 752–53). Lutz's father, also named Friedrich Lutz, owned with his brother the local brewery, but died two months before his son's birth. Young Friedrich grew up with his mother, Amélie Lutz, née Metzger, and four siblings. The First World War brought many tragedies to the Lutz family. He, who was too young to be drawn into the war, lost his older brother on the battlefield; his native Saarburg would become part of the victorious French Republic. As ardent Germans, the family was unwilling to accept the new French administration, so they moved to Stuttgart in 1919 (Veit-Bachmann 2003: 10).

Lutz began his studies of economics at the University of Heidelberg in 1920. One year later, he moved to Berlin where the German historical school was still dominating the academic landscape. During his Berlin years (1921–25), his acquaintance with the young lecturer Walter Eucken became formative for him (Veit-Bachmann 2002: 158; Kolev and Köhler 2022: 761–62). In 1925, Eucken was appointed professor of economics at the University of Tübingen not far from Stuttgart, accepting Lutz as his first doctoral student. That same year, Lutz defended his doctoral thesis, Der Kampf um den Kapitalbegriff in der neuesten Zeit (The Current Disputes on Capital Theory) (1927).2 The thesis provides a short glimpse at how Lutz conducted research in the history of economics. He classified economists according to the method they adopted in studying the origin and purpose of capital. This approach to the history of economics, focusing on issues of methodology, would be fateful for Lutz's later career. After defending his thesis, Lutz moved to Berlin where, upon Eucken's intermediation, he worked in the department for economic policy of the Mechanical Engineering Industry Association, headed by Eucken's friend and later ordoliberal fellow Alexander Rüstow (1885–1963). Meanwhile, Eucken was appointed professor of economics at the University of Freiburg in 1927. Lutz accepted a position as a research assistant at Eucken's chair in 1929 in order to work on his habilitation thesis (Brintzinger 1996: 45; Veit-Bachmann 2003: 12–13).

As Eucken's assistant, Lutz joined his teacher's dispute against the historical school over the methods that should be applied in the explanation of economic phenomena. The roots of his teacher's hostility can be traced back to the Berlin years when in 1923, in the midst of hyperinflation, Eucken published Kritische Betrachtungen zum deutschen Geldproblem (Critical Considerations of the German Monetary Problem) (1923), which broke with the legacy of the historical school. Eucken's book analyzed the German hyperinflation of 1921–23 as a result of the German central bank's expansive monetary policy, rejecting the dominant view promoted by the historical school that hyperinflation was a consequence of balance-of-payments issues. As a lecturer, Eucken focused on price and monetary theory, that is, those fields of research he would bequeath to his student (Klinckowstroem 2000: 62–66; Veit-Bachmann 2002: 158).

Recounting as a professor at Zurich in the postwar years, Lutz recalled that the mere collection of facts had made historical school economists unable to explain and combat hyperinflation in 1921–23. Members of the historical school not only failed to identify the reasons for hyperinflation but, more importantly, were unable to provide any substantive policy recommendations to combat the disastrous phenomenon (Lutz [1967] 2008; see also Barkai 1991: 38–39). In Lutz's memory, up-and-coming scholars never forgave the historical school for their alleged incompetence (Lutz 1971: 62–63). The emancipation process from the historical school was institutionalized during the late 1920s when Eucken and Rüstow founded a group of economists who called themselves “German Ricardians.” The name was not meant to suggest that they adopted a specific part of Ricardo's intellectual legacy (Janssen [1998] 2012: 38); rather they sought to reconnect German economics to abstract economic theory à la Ricardo, thereby provoking the representatives of the historical school who saw in the towering figure of classical political economy the epitome of abstract theorizing detached from reality (Schmoller [1893] 1949: 74; Köster 2011: 56).

Yet an irreconcilable conflict emerged among the Ricardians about what abstract economic theory was supposed to yield, and thus the question of how to construct abstract theory remained unanswered (Köster 2011: 222–23). The spiritus rector of the conflict was Adolf Löwe (1893–1995), who pleaded for the foundation of a new (dynamic) economic approach that could explain the instability of capitalism. According to Löwe, the existing (static) laws of economic theory failed to explain capitalism's dynamism. In his view, booms and depressions reflected the inherent tendency of capitalism to disequilibrium where prices and quantities moved simultaneously upward (during the boom) and downward (during the depression); most importantly, the aforementioned directions of economic magnitudes changed on a regular basis. This observation stood in diametrical opposition to economic theory that deduced its logic from the clearing function of markets by constructing such relationships among prices and quantities that equilibrium was always established (Löwe 1926: 192–97). Market-oriented economists, such as the Austrians Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich A. Hayek, trusted in the equilibrating forces of markets and emphasized the importance of the existing (static) laws of economic theory. They identified the one-sided change in the money supply as the ultimate reason for the disturbance of the coordination mechanism of markets (Klausinger 2013: 13–15; Grudev 2020: 22–25).

Lutz also contributed to the conflict among the Ricardians with his habilitation thesis, Das Konjunkturpoblem in der Nationalökonomie (The Business Cycle Problem in Economics) (1932). With this book, Lutz entered the scene of German economics (Hagemann 2008: 275). He accused the Ricardians of spending too much energy in proving why and what gave rise to the periodic recurrence of crises instead of concentrating on why crises could reach disastrous dimensions (Rühl 1994: 188–89; Hagemann 2002: xvi–xviii). Lutz (and later Eucken) criticized business cycle theory because its approach reflected an irreconcilable conflict between squeezing all individual events into a general scheme, on the one hand, and developing abstract theory oriented to explain these events, on the other. There was a division of labor between teacher and student. The teacher saw in business cycle theory an example of historicism originating from Karl Marx's works that tried to formulate a general dynamic law of capitalism with whose help business cycle theorists sought to deliver an explanation of the periodic recurrence of crises (Eucken [1940] 1950: 246, 329; Grudev 2019: 8; 2020: 28–32). The student conducted a study from a history-of-economics perspective—from the founder of business cycle research, Clément Juglar, to the most recent works of Ragnar Frisch and Nikolay Kondratieff. He pointed out that business cycle theorists failed to explain the crisis as a necessary consequence of the instability of capitalism. Either their attempts ended up as mere descriptions, as in the case of Juglar, or the wave-like movement was replicated by mathematical formulas but not explained, as in the case of Frisch or Kondratieff (Lutz 1932: 32–35, 135; Grudev 2019: 8–11).

Lutz concluded that each crisis represented a unique historical event that should be explained in its historical setting. This was not a concession to the historical school but a quest to construct ideal types as models to explain economic phenomena we today define as macroeconomic under consideration of the institutional framework within which the phenomena arose. In this context, the equilibrium approach was the fundamental benchmark to study how exogenous factors could affect the relationship among economic variables such as prices and quantities. Lutz's emphasis on the equilibrium approach was the reason to characterize his thesis as the forerunner of modern equilibrium business cycle theory (Dal Pont Legrand and Hagemann 2013). In Lutz's eyes, however, the business cycle theorist had to focus on the explanation of how institutional factors affect the reestablishment of equilibrium. Translated into plain English, the task of the economist was to explore how exogenous shocks affected the exchange process among individuals within different institutional frameworks and how the institutional framework determined the depth of an economic crisis as well as the recovery process (Lutz 1932: 160–65; see also Lutz 1944: 210–11; Grudev 2019: 16–19).

The concept of ideal types was first developed by Max Weber, who, jointly with the Austrian economist Friedrich von Wieser, aimed at reconciling the dispute left behind by the Methodenstreit between Schmoller and Menger. The initial debate focused on the irreconcilable dichotomy between history and theory, and on the question of whether political economy was allowed to develop general laws and concepts universally valid across time and space. The Weber-Wieser approach introduced economic sociology as an intermediary layer between abstract economic theory and descriptive economic history (Kolev 2020: 48). In his later work Foundations of Economics, Eucken ([1940] 1950) adopted and developed the concept of ideal types as the crucial analytical instruments of economic sociology with whose help he intended to explain how institutions determined the causes and essence of economic phenomena that are understood as macroeconomic phenomena today. In short, Eucken aimed to provide a definitive solution to the Methodenstreit (Lutz 1944: 212–13; Herrmann-Pillath 1994: 55).

Lutz and Eucken were not the first who identified the business cycle phenomenon as a problem of economic sociology. Joseph Schumpeter was one of the most prominent scholars who adopted the approach of Weberian socioeconomics in analyzing the business cycle phenomenon in the context of the institutional settings of capitalism (Streissler 1994: 38). My article discerns two different branches of the Weberian tradition of economic sociology, whereas Schumpeter aimed at developing a general law of the dynamics of capitalism where the business cycle reflects the inherent nature of capitalism. Lutz and Eucken meanwhile characterized capitalism as a too-general concept that prevented social scientists from grasping the relevance of historically given institutional parameters in explaining the severity of economic crises.

3. The Encounter with English High Theory

Lutz received his habilitation after delivering the inaugural lecture “Current Problems of German Mechanical Engineering” on February 29, 1932,3 which qualified him for a professorship. He became Eucken's first student who was granted the right to lecture at the university, the venia legendi (Brintzinger 1996: 45). As a lecturer at Freiburg, Lutz taught Current Disputes in Monetary Policy, Currency and Money, and Problems of Business Cycle Theory, as well as statistical tutorials (46). In this respect, one can identify a further division of labor between his teacher and him: Eucken concentrated on the analysis of institutions that determine the economic systems, while Lutz concentrated on the analysis of the institutional framework that enabled means of exchange in the first place, “which the individual economic units used to facilitate their transactions” (Eucken [1940] 1950: 159). The influence of the institutional framework on market forms of exchange and the influence of the institutional framework on the means of exchange are two fundamental pillars of Eucken's concept of economic orders (119–73). These two pillars are of particular relevance in investigating the severity of economic crises (Albert 2009: 95; Grudev 2020: 28–32).

A fundamental milestone for the division of labor between student and teacher, and thus for the formation of the Freiburg school, was Lutz's Rockefeller Fellowship in England. Lutz joined young scholars from Central Europe who regarded the fellowship as a welcome opportunity to study Anglo-Saxon economics and to establish contacts with their peers in Britain and the United States (Syga-Dubois 2019: 1–10). In the summer of 1934, Lutz applied for the fellowship with the aim of expanding his knowledge of English monetary theory and banking. He planned to spend the academic year 1934–35 in London at LSE, where he would concentrate on practical questions, and three months at Cambridge, where he would focus on theoretical foundations (751).

Instrumental in Lutz's decision to give priority to LSE was Hayek's doctoral student Vera Smith (1912–76), whom he had met in Freiburg in 1934 and whom he would marry in 1937 (Nobel Prize–Winning Economist1983: 362; Cubitt 2006: 78). This decision to spend the majority of the Rockefeller year at LSE was regarded as unusual by German scholars, as visible from his letters to August Wilhelm Fehling (1896–1964), a historian who was responsible for selecting the eligible for the fellowship at that time. His sympathetic ear and desire to help the young scholars allowed Lutz to be more honest about his choice. Fehling advised him to spend the academic year at Cambridge, because at LSE “the conditions for a German have become more difficult because of the attitude of some members of the faculty, especially in your field, and because of the emigrants, that the self-assertion requires all too great strength” (Fehling to Lutz, September 22, 1934).4

Lutz responded that he had already heard similar accounts about LSE's academic environment. He had no intentions to “jump” into the LSE community but to seek contacts with people from practical life. He even stated that he intended to avoid emigrants (Syga-Dubois 2019: 544). By distancing himself from the LSE community, he could concentrate on monetary theory and international monetary economics (Lutz to Fehling, September 25, 1934). Vera Smith probably played a pivotal role in Lutz's acclimating to London. Her academic career was intimately related to LSE's academic environment, as her former colleague John R. Hicks (1984: 55) remembered. At the age of eighteen, in 1930, she set out in her study of economics at LSE and graduated with a doctoral thesis titled “Free Banking, or A Reconsideration of the Historical and Analytical Basis of Central Banking” (1935) under Hayek's supervision (Haberler 1984: 47). It provided the basis for her book The Rationale of Central Banking and the Free Banking Alternative ([1936] 1990), the reprint of which was reviewed favorably by economists with affinities for the Austrian school (Schwartz 1984; Yeager 1990; Zelmanovitz 2019).

Hayek advised Smith to go to Freiburg and deepen her knowledge of German monetary theory. Recommending Freiburg was hardly a coincidence. After all, Eucken and his Freiburg colleague Karl Diehl (1864–1943) had established themselves as leading monetary theorists in Germany (Ellis [1934] 1937: 91–92, 224–30). Hayek himself met both economists at the 1928 meeting of the Verein für Socialpolitik in Zurich where, in a session chaired by Diehl and attended by Mises and Hayek as discussants, Eucken presented a paper about the relationship between commercial bank credit creation and the business cycle (Eucken 1929). The presentation clearly indicated that the Freiburg economist sided with the Austrians who insisted on monetary explanations of the business cycle (Blümle and Goldschmidt 2006: 554; Vanberg 2013: 94; Grudev 2020: 25–28).

After her stay in Germany, “she came back bringing Lutz to London, and after a while they married” (Nobel Prize–Winning Economist1983: 362). Lutz was “brought” to LSE on October 1, 1934 (Lutz to Eucken, October 2, 1934),5 in the middle of a period that was later described by Hayek ([1963] 1995: 49) as “the most exciting period in the development of economic theory.” This specific notion of economic theory stood in complete contrast to Lutz's research interests originating from his habilitation period, and it also hints at the ever-larger and unbridgeable gulf between German and Anglo-Saxon thought that emerged in the course of the 1930s. Lutz characterized Anglo-Saxon economics as “mathematical detail research” (mathematische Detailforschung); in his eyes, the portion of Hicks and Allen 1934 written by Hicks (Hicks wrote part 1; Allen, part 2) exemplified abstract mathematical economics that deprived students from grasping the interdependences among institutions and the relevance of the institutional approach to the economic process:

I am glad that I am a bit older and experienced in economics, otherwise I would have fallen victim to the scam and considered investigations of demand curves and such things as the ideal. The students to whom I often talk also seem to me to be on entirely the wrong track, everywhere one sees them drawing curves and debating about them [curves]. . . . If I could do mathematics, I would write a critique of the mathematical school—it seems to me extraordinarily important, because if the edifice of Walras is a palace in which one cannot live, then what is being done here now ceases to be a palace at all, various rooms and ornaments with no regard for the building as a whole. (Lutz to Eucken, November 9, 1934)

In one of his reports to the Rockefeller Foundation, Lutz lamented how difficult the contact was with LSE scholars, since they considered monetary theory and issues pertaining to international monetary economics “out of fashion,” whereas “I am not interested in demand curves and the refinement of value theory” (Lutz to Fehling, November 10, 1934). He wanted to continue working on the research program he had staked out with his habilitation thesis, namely, to explore how the monetary institutional framework could affect the severity of economic crises. Lutz found refuge in Philip B. Whale's seminar on money and banking. Whale started as a lecturer in commerce at LSE and had been lecturing on monetary economics and banking since the academic year 1926–27 (Howson 2011: 168). In Lutz's eyes, he was the only expert on monetary theory at LSE. Whale even provided Lutz with a letter of recommendation for Cambridge, which was addressed to Keynes and D. H. Robertson (Lutz to Eucken, April 27, 1935). Lutz attended Whale's seminars, in which he presented several papers. His first paper focused on the German banking system and was based on his lecture notes from Freiburg (Lutz to Eucken, February 7, 1935). The most notable paper was “Gold Standard and Economic Order” (Lutz to Fehling, November 10, 1934), with which Lutz undertook his first steps toward monetary institutional analysis and thus joined his future wife's research program. The two economists were united in the quest for an institutional framework that could check the money supply by controlling the creation of bank deposits and could thus abolish excessive economic booms and crises (Haberler 1984: 47).

In addition to “Gold Standard and Economic Order” (1935a), which was published in the German journal Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, Lutz produced the papers “On the English Money Market” (1935b) and “On the Velocity of Money” (1936) during his sojourn in England. In the latter, he stressed the interdependences between the monetary institutional framework and other elements of the economic order. In Lutz's assessment, the severity of an economic crisis depended crucially on these interdependences. These papers would provide the basis for his future analysis of the 1931 banking crisis (Lutz [1936] 1962), a book that was among the earliest volumes of the Freiburg school's series Ordnung der Wirtschaft (Order of the Economy).

4. Lutz's Disappointed Expectations and the Inevitability of Emigration

Upon Lutz's return to Freiburg in 1935, Eucken proudly reflected on the developments surrounding his erstwhile student in a letter to his mother, the painter and artist Irene Eucken (1863–1941): “Lutz, who has returned from England, is indeed developing excellently. He is now a leading young economist. It is true that a kind of Eucken school is now developing. It is not something I aimed to achieve, but it has become clear to me during my visit to Berlin in September that this is indeed the case—that a certain such school does exist” (Eucken to Irene Eucken, November 1935, as quoted by Dathe and Goldschmidt [2003: 64]). The close intellectual nexus, however, would make Lutz's academic career in Nazi Germany virtually impossible. Before departing for England, Lutz witnessed how his teacher had been involved in several debates with the newly established regime. The first surfaced as a result of the antagonistic position Eucken assumed against Freiburg's newly elected rector in 1933, Martin Heidegger. Eucken did not conceal his disagreements with Heidegger during the senate sessions and became the voice of a latent opposition at Freiburg (Brintzinger 1996: 82–83; Klinckowstroem 2000: 85–86; Goldschmidt 2013: 142; Köhler and Kolev 2013: 218). The Nazis envisaged Heidegger as a fitting person to enforce Nazi ideology in the traditionally independent German university landscape. In this endeavor, Heidegger sought support from young academics, scholars, and even students with whose help he tried to silence professorial resistance against his policy congruent with Nazi ideology (Grunenberg [2008] 2016: 189). The conflict between Heidegger and the professors escalated when Heidegger intervened in the appointment procedure within the Faculty of Law and State Sciences, in which Eucken played a dominant role. Heidegger thwarted the faculty's plans to appoint Adolf Lampe, an economist in the ambit of the Freiburg school (Kolev and Köhler 2022: 759), as a successor to Karl Diehl's chair, favoring an economist associated with the Nazi Party, Carl Arnhold. The opposition on the side of professors was the final tipping point leading Heidegger to resign from the position of rector (Brintzinger 1996: 100–101; Klinckowstroem 2000: 85–86; Goldschmidt 2013: 142).

Another debate initiated by Eucken targeted the intellectual tendencies prevailing in academia as promoted by the Nazi regime. Eucken and the Freiburg-based legal scholars Franz Böhm (1895–1977) and Hans Großmann-Doerth (1884–1944) launched a book series titled The Order of the Economy, which eventually contained five volumes. The series was introduced with a manifesto-like pronouncement, “Our Task” (Böhm, Eucken, and Grossmann-Doerth [1936] 1989), a document that is commonly considered an important part of the Freiburg school's founding (Goldschmidt and Wohlgemuth 2008: 21). The manifesto criticized the current state of German jurisprudence and economics, which were both still dominated by historicism. Historicism's enduring survival in Germany was, in part, also an immediate consequence of the emigration of German economists such as Löwe, Lederer, Röpke, and Rüstow who, during the 1920s and early 1930s, had contributed to a stronger theoretical orientation of German economics (Hagemann 1997; Janssen [1998] 2012).

The Freiburg scholars might have recognized that these characteristics of German economics turned out to be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, they recognized that the Marshallian legacy dominating British economic thought deprived students from grasping the relevance of institutions for the economic process (Eucken [1940] 1950: 206). On the other hand, without a strong theoretical core, German economics had been basking in the nationalist and historically relativist tendencies dominating the political landscape of the Weimar Republic (Janssen [1998] 2012: 133–54; Köster 2011: 121–23, 152). It gave rise to the formation of a group of economists who wanted to found a German economics independent from so-called liberalistic English economics. The aim of German economics had become the subordination of economic thought under the objectives of Nazi policy. Parochial and nationalist thinking of this kind was not what the German Ricardians, including Lutz and Eucken, had in mind. Economists peddling nationalist rhetoric tended to be in the minority during the Weimar Republic, yet they were suddenly promoted during the Nazi regime. Almost all members of the German Ricardians, on the other hand, were forced to emigrate for racial or political reasons. This transformed the academic environment and diminished the chances for an academic career for those who sought to be in touch with Anglo-Saxon economics or whose interest was in research in neoclassical economics broadly construed. Furthermore, the Nazi regime established the National Socialist German Lecturers' League, whose purpose was to influence the appointment of university lecturers. The league was responsible for judging whether the applicants were “politically reliable”—in other words, whether they could be characterized as dedicated National Socialists. An indispensable prerequisite for appointment was the positive evaluation of the applicant's “political reliability” (Rieter and Schmolz 1993: 91–96; Janssen [1998] 2012: 159–65; Hagemann 1997: 10).6

Lutz fell victim to these dynamics. His fellowship in England and his association with the Eucken circle in Nazi Germany closed most doors to him in German academia. Particularly his book Das Grundproblem der Geldverfassung (The Fundamental Problem of the Monetary Constitution) ([1936] 1962) as the second volume in Eucken's series Ordnung der Wirtschaft (Order of the Economy) represented a unique document in the unbridgeable gulf between his research and the “new German economics.” Lutz argued that the monetary institutional framework was responsible for how Germany and the United States experienced severe banking crises. This stood in contrast to the resilience of the English monetary system during the 1931 banking crisis. He traced the source to the Peel Banking Act of 1844 that required the Bank of England to separate money issue and credit provision. Lutz argued that a similar act should be employed in Germany, based on the 100 percent reserve on deposits promoted by the Chicago Plan. A first version of the plan was developed by the Chicago economists Frank H. Knight and Henry C. Simons, and it was later positively reviewed by Irving Fisher (Benes and Kumhof 2012). Based on this plan, Lutz ([1936] 1962, 86–102) suggested that the central bank had to assume full control of the money supply, while commercial banks concentrated only on the qualitative selection of credit borrowers.

Critical reviews from Nazi economists were not long in coming. In FinanzArchiv, one of the leading German journals, Lutz was criticized for having misinterpreted the reasons for the severe banking crisis in Germany. The reviewer, Siegfried Faßbender, whose most famous book, National Socialist Economics and Peoples' Freedom (1943), clearly indicated his political sentiments, was certain that a monetary institutional framework such as the English one would not have saved the German economy from disaster. The German banking crisis that gave rise to a prolonged economic recession had been not an economic event but a “political attempt to ruin us financially” (Faßbender 1939: 159). Taking into account the political rhetoric in Germany in the late 1930s, it comes as no surprise that the victorious countries from the Great War were considered responsible for the deliberate destruction of the German economy. Such political rhetoric was diametrically opposed to Lutz's institutional analysis.

In his London paper “Gold Standard and Economic Order” (1935a), he supported the gold standard as the monetary institutional arrangement that corresponded to a free-market economy. In this way, Lutz took a rather provocative stand because he was fully conscious of the political dimensions of the problem. He raised the following questions: “Does a particular monetary constitution not only correspond to a particular economic order, but is this order itself perhaps also dependent on a particular political order? Does economic equilibrium of the free-market economy presuppose a political equilibrium? We do not have to answer these questions here” (1935a: 247).7 These were bold questions during the Nazi dictatorship, given the intolerance National Socialists demonstrated concerning doubts about their vision of the political order (Bernholz 1989: 196; Veit-Bachmann 2003: 29–30).

Several reports delivered to the National Socialist German Lecturers' League characterized him as an excellent scholar with internationally renowned publications but “politically disinterested”; moreover, “it seems that he is living past our time.” The anonymous report concluded that Lutz belonged to “those type of lecturers for which we National Socialists do not wish” (unknown sender, 1938; see also Syga-Dubois 2019: 636).8 Another report from the same year stated that “in political terms, L. is apparently uninterested. He still maintains close relations with the Lampe-Eucken circle.”9

Such a hostile academic environment could be regarded as the primary reason why Lutz applied for a further Rockefeller Fellowship in December 1936. This time, he intended to spend the academic year 1937–38 in the United States with his future wife, Vera. On March 15, 1937, Lutz returned to London to marry Vera Smith. Lutz informed his teacher that Hayek and Robbins were writing letters of recommendation to a “mass of people for our sake” (Lutz to Eucken, March 15, 1937). One example is the letter from Hayek to his Austrian colleague Gottfried Haberler, who was based at Harvard at the time. The letter can be considered as a summary of Lutz's desperate situation in Germany. Hayek informed Haberler that Lutz and his wife, Vera Smith, were about to visit the United States. Hayek explained that Lutz could not find an academic position and had even been rejected for a chair in Hamburg because he was an “anti-Nazi as is the whole Eucken circle” and “the political report on him had been unfavorable” (Hayek to Haberler, March 11, 1937, as translated by Caldwell and Klausinger [2022: 344n12]).10 In his later letters from the United States, as a Rockefeller Fellow, Lutz stated that he had lost hope for university or other academic positions in Hamburg, Leipzig, Kiel, and Berlin.

5. Trying to Release the Handbrake of Emigration

Based on Lutz's letters from the United States, this section claims that it was during the trip to the United States when he realized how research in modern economics, which neglected the role of monetary institutions, was nevertheless indispensable for him if he wanted to have an academic career at an Anglo-Saxon university. It was not the type of economics on which Lutz hoped to concentrate his efforts and energy. First, he did not possess the necessary mathematical skills. Second, he believed that in far too many mathematical treatments of economic phenomena, the role of institutions was sorely neglected. Economists, he alleged, could not explain the cause and nature of economic phenomena we denote as macroeconomic today. Lutz expressed his concerns in his first letter from Harvard: “There is no doubt that mathematics is strongly advancing in our science, at least outside Germany. Where this leads to, I do not know. In any case, the students are drilled in mathematical theory, and one feels pathetic in this process” (Lutz to Eucken, October 15, 1937).

These tensions of his internal Methodenstreit did not remain unnoticed by the Harvard economist John van Sickle (1892–1975), who was the associate director of the Division of Social Sciences in the Rockefeller Foundation and who played an instrumental role in the integration of German émigrés into the American academic environment (Berman 1983: 106; Craver 1986: 209). In December 1937, while Lutz was finishing his three-month stay at Harvard, van Sickle reflected in his diary (Syga-Dubois 2019: 544) how Lutz wanted to continue his teaching activity in Germany, how he had even been nominated for appointments to the three universities—Hamburg, Hanover, and Halle—yet how the Nazi Party had vetoed them all. Van Sickle described Lutz as “obviously very depressed and wondered whether he can both continue to teach [in Germany] and keep his self-respect: He is an extremely sensitive and appealing type of person and I feel grave misgivings about his future” (van Sickle, December 10, 1937).11

I assess this period as the culmination of Lutz's inner antagonisms, which is confirmed in a letter to Eucken written on Christmas Eve: “I would be happy if I had an associate professorship at home so that we could live from it. One would be at home and could do more for theory than here” (Lutz to Eucken, December 24, 1937). This inner antagonism might be characterized as the projection of the Methodenstreit between Schmoller and Menger. At the same time, on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, Eucken had been focusing on the concept of ideal types with whose help he aimed to provide a solution to this Methodenstreit (Lutz 1944: 212). Lutz knew that if he were to go back to Germany and join his teacher's research efforts, where he would have been able to conduct research on monetary theory and institutional analysis in the tradition of Weberian socioeconomics, he would be inserted into an environment where he would be pressured to support the ideas of the Nazis. Curiously, Lutz was not formally expelled from Freiburg, a fact that surely compounded the difficulty of his decision whether he ought to return to Germany. His official status was a lecturer on leave (beurlaubter Privatdozent), and he remained a faculty member of the University of Freiburg—a status that was confirmed by the French military government in September 1945 (Brintzinger 1996: 48). In this context, one can understand the inner conflict that escalated in Lutz's letters from Harvard that contained a déjà vu from the LSE period. He complained yet again that what had been taught in America was completely different from the type of economics research being conducted at German universities: “They treat things which we have never heard of as self-evident” (Lutz to Eucken, undated letter from Cambridge, Mass.). In the very same letter, he described the difference between partial and general equilibrium as well as how “fashionable” Edgeworth-Pareto indifference curves had become.

His inner antagonism had surfaced some weeks earlier, at Chicago, which was the first university the freshly married couple visited. They spent three months in a city “free of fantasy or charm” where Vera felt “offended by America” (Lutz to Eucken, as translated by Kolev and Köhler [2022: 764]). The couple met Frank Knight, Henry Simons, and Jacob Viner, economists who were undoubtedly aware of the relevance of the institutional framework for economic processes. Yet Lutz was cognizant of the fact that they represented a minority perspective in the new tendencies dominating American economics. In one of his letters, Lutz lamented that he felt like a bad economist in the circle of US economics students. They were able to cite whole passages from Edgeworth, Marshall, Keynes, or Hawtrey, and, based on these passages, they could conduct extensive discussions. Lutz was confronted with theories of economists with whom he should have been familiar but with whom he had never associated his research program. With some envy, Lutz stated that his wife was able to participate in the conversations actively, which made Knight and Simons more interested in her. He admitted that his English was still not good enough to contribute to the discussions significantly. His wife not only had the advantage of being a native speaker but also possessed economic knowledge acquired during her study at LSE that allowed her to integrate more easily into the new tendencies coming from Britain and now dominating American economics research. Lutz concluded, “I feel like ‘prince consort’” (Lutz to Eucken, May 11, 1937). In the context of these tendencies, however, Lutz found some relief: “I have the advantage that I can ask Vera who knows all these things” (Lutz to Eucken, undated letter from Cambridge, Mass.). Thus, Vera likely played the decisive role in her husband's increasing familiarity with Anglo-Saxon economics.

The most notable result of Vera's help—and at the same time of Lutz's inner antagonisms—was his first paper in English, “The Outcome of the Saving-Investment Discussion” (1938), which discussed Keynes's General Theory (1936) critically. With relief, he wrote to his teacher that “I finished the paper with God's and Vera's—not exclusively linguistic—help” (Lutz to Eucken, December 24, 1937). It leads one to the conclusion not only that Vera “anglicized” the paper—something she would continue to do for his publications at Princeton—but that she might also have assisted him in developing a critique of the economic theory he encountered (see also Lutz to Eucken, March 12, 1946). Lutz submitted the paper to the Quarterly Journal of Economics when they were at Harvard, but he did not expect the paper to be accepted, let alone be regarded as a success. As a member of the board of editors of the journal, Alvin Hansen warned Lutz that the journal received many papers on Keynes's book, so the chances for acceptance were low (Lutz to Eucken, January 17, 1938). Lutz himself admitted to his teacher that the whole world was writing about the saving-investment problem. In case it was not accepted, Lutz pondered translating it into German. He even regretted that the paper was not originally written in German, which would have allowed him to submit it to a German journal (Lutz to Eucken, December 24, 1937). It also prolonged Lutz's inner conflict whether emigration had been the right decision, even though he knew that even if he were to obtain a position in Germany he and his wife would live in constant fear that he might suffer the same fate as his former Freiburg colleague Franz Böhm, who was dismissed from the University of Jena after voicing disagreement with the Nazis (Vanberg 2008: 43–44).12

With the unexpected success of the saving-investment paper, Lutz made a splash within American economics. Lutz's paper juxtaposed the savings and investment concepts of Keynes, Robertson, and the Stockholm school, outlining which of these concepts was more appropriate to explain the Wicksellian cumulative process and how it might be used as a benchmark for monetary policy. The largely methodological paper was undoubtedly an outcome of his ability acquired at Freiburg to discuss comparatively different methods applied to macroeconomic phenomena, an ability he had demonstrated in his dissertation on capital theory and his habilitation on business cycle theory. Perhaps as a career-tactical compromise, Lutz stopped emphasizing the central argument from his habilitation years that institutions mattered for the explanation of macroeconomic phenomena. It is an indication that he now recognized the new tendencies in American economics during the “Keynesian Revolution.” The paper was published in the May 1938 issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, and the August 1939 issue launched a discussion of Lutz's arguments. Notable economists such as Abba Lerner (1939) and Oskar Lange (1939) responded with extensive papers on Lutz's criticism. Lutz (1939) replied with a final comment from Princeton, where he had just assumed his new job as instructor.

The lasting relevance of Lutz's “Saving and Investment” essay was documented when it and Abba Lerner's response were later republished in the section “Saving, Investment, and National Income” as part of Readings in Business Cycle Theory (American Economic Association 1944), commissioned by the American Economic Association. As a chair of the selection committee, Haberler argued that both papers elucidated the relationship between savings, consumption, investment, and national income in the context of business cycle analysis. The students “should become familiar with the logical pitfalls and the opportunities of terminological tangles and controversies provided by the existence of overlapping alternative definitions” (Haberler 1944: xv).

6. Releasing the Handbrake of Emigration

The critique of Keynes's General Theory opened the door to American economics for Lutz (Veit-Bachmann 2003: 22). He expressed his satisfaction with the publication: “I thought it was very useful that the paper appeared in the Harvard Journal” (Lutz to Eucken, January 17, 1938). Meanwhile, Lutz had joined Princeton as a lecturer in September 1938. The Princeton economics department had already experienced significant change during the interwar period through the addition of economists such as Frank Albert Fetter, Edwin Kemmerer, and Frank Dunstan Graham, all of whom played an instrumental role in transforming the department into a leading research institution (Chandler 1978: 150).

Like Lutz, the renowned economist Oskar Morgenstern also joined Princeton in 1938 (Leonard 2010: 224–25). A diary entry by Morgenstern confirms his positive attitude toward his new Princeton colleague: “Lutzs are here; both very nice. He is a good economist. I read his essay on ‘Saving and Investment’ very carefully & I liked it very much” (September 26, 1938).13 Further comments in Morgenstern's diary confirmed Lutz as a good economist who was “perhaps too specialized in monetary theory” (October 6, 1938). Lutz's participation in a seminar on capital theory made a strong impression upon Morgenstern: “Yesterday discussion on scarcity of capital, Lutz is the best of them all, one can see that clearly” (December 9, 1938). It was during this time that Lutz received increased attention and in which—also among his faculty colleagues—his standing as a credentialed economist became more pronounced. The result was his appointment to assistant professor in 1939, five months after having become instructor. Morgenstern in his diary described the appointment as “very pleasant for me” (February 15, 1939). In 1943 Lutz became affiliated with the Institute for Advanced Study; in 1945, he was promoted to associate professor; from 1947 to 1953 he was full professor of money and banking at Princeton.

Lutz never forgot about his Freiburg origins during his period in America. Immediately following the publication of Eucken's largely methodological work The Foundations of Economics (1940), Lutz reviewed it in the American Economic Review (Lutz 1940a) and, with delay induced by the war, in Economica (Lutz 1944; Veit-Bachmann 2002: 155). Several days after the publication in the American Economic Review, he organized a meeting of the Economic Club at Princeton whose purpose was to discuss Eucken's methodological message and thus popularize the Freiburg school's research program. With pronounced regret, he wrote to Eucken that “it was impossible for me to convince the participants of the relevance of the issue. I was thoroughly discouraged.” In the same letter, he described his failure to find a publisher for a translation of Eucken's book before the end of the war (Lutz to Eucken, July 23, 1940).

Perhaps it was this disappointment that convinced Lutz to focus on technical economics with whose help he hoped to end his internal Methodenstreit. He published several papers about interest rate (Lutz 1940b, 1943, 1945) and investment theory (Lutz 1945). The culmination was the collaborative book with his wife, The Theory of Investment of the Firm (Lutz and Lutz 1951), which represented a mathematical model of the microeconomic theory of production. It provided the basis for their account of firms' investment decisions toward maximizing return on capital. Historically, these analytical instruments had been developed at LSE (Boulding 1953: 77; Haberler 1984: 52)—and they were the same analytical tools he had eschewed during his fellowship year at LSE. When the couple published their collaborative work, Hayek, who played a formative role in promoting the more rigorous economic theory at LSE, had already left technical economics after publishing The Pure Theory of Capital ([1941] 1950). By the mid-1940s, Hayek had begun concentrating his efforts on The Road to Serfdom ([1944] 2006), which was very much in line with the type of institutional analysis emerging contemporaneously in the Freiburg school (Köhler and Kolev 2013: 219; Kolev 2023: 3). As mentioned above, Hayek thought of Lutz when reflecting on the appropriate person to write the US version of The Road to Serfdom (Caldwell 2011: 303).

Despite his stellar career at Princeton, Lutz was one of the few economists who visited Europe immediately after the end of the war (see, e.g., Scherer 2000: 624–25). In his first letter to his teacher after the war, he described his successful career as a professor at Princeton and how he had begun advising the Federal Reserve about interest rate policy. Nonetheless, he was reluctant to stay at Princeton and still hoped to return to Germany: “I do not want to stay here forever” (Lutz to Eucken, October 21, 1945). He even rejected an appointment at Yale that would have been accompanied with a higher salary, because at Princeton he was able to concentrate on his research (Lutz to Eucken, March 12, 1947). His ultimate return to Europe was preceded by frequent visits to the continent. The dean of the Department of Economics and Social Institutions at Princeton, James Douglas Brown (1898–1986), justified Lutz's overseas visits as “a strong pull to help reestablish economic scholarship in the German speaking area of Europe. . . . He has always been German at heart—of the old school, not Hitlerite” (Brown to Lanier, December 9, 1953).14

Lutz visited his alma mater in 1948 as a guest professor and gave a lecture titled “Theoretical Economics,” which, perhaps ironically so, introduced Anglo-Saxon economics to German students. In 1950, Eucken died unexpectedly during a lecture series organized by Hayek and Robbins at LSE. Lutz came to replace Eucken at Freiburg for the academic year 1951–52, and the university offered him the professorship now vacant after his teacher's death. The negotiations between the faculty and Lutz, however, took so much time because of bureaucratic issues that they were prematurely broken, with Lutz returning to Princeton (Brintzinger 1996: 147).

In 1953, Lutz finally accepted a financially superior position at Zurich. The acceptance was hardly a surprise. In one of his first letters to Eucken after the war, Lutz voiced his wishes to find a position in Switzerland and asked Eucken whether he knew about vacant chairs there (Lutz to Eucken, December 18, 1946). In the same letter, he justified his choice with the better food supply and housing situation compared to Germany. From the summer of 1953 until his death in 1975, Lutz taught the theory and history of socioeconomics at the University of Zurich (Ritzmann 1976: 80). Lutz's professorship in socioeconomics demonstrates that he found an end to his internal Methodenstreit, in a manner similar to the emergence of Weber's socioeconomics contributing to the reconciliation of the posterity of the Menger-Schmoller Methodenstreit (Kolev 2020: 34).

Lutz's solution to his internal Methodenstreit represented a unique synthesis reconciling Anglo-Saxon economics and the institutionally based approach of the Freiburg school. He continued to publish works on modern monetary and capital theory based on the approach he adopted at Princeton.15 In his lectures and seminars, he intended to, as he wrote, “[make] German Students and Professors acquainted with Economics as taught in American Universities” (quoted by Veit-Bachmann [2003: 22]) as well as Swiss students and professors who had been thoroughly isolated from the developments in Anglo-Saxon universities during the Second World War. His first lecture at Freiburg in 1948 introduced to German students the cleavage between microeconomic and macroeconomic theory that already dominated the economics corpus at American universities. The former focused on value and price theory based on modern mathematical approaches, whereas the latter concerned Keynesian macroeconomics based on the IS-LM model.16

At the same time, Lutz concentrated his efforts and energy on popularizing the Freiburg school's research program in postwar Europe. He contributed regularly to the ORDO Yearbook of Economic and Social Order, the journal founded by Eucken and Böhm in 1948 of which Lutz would become coeditor following the sudden death of his teacher. In his articles appearing there, Lutz stressed the relevance of institutionally based analyses of economic processes, the cornerstone of Eucken's research program (Hagemann 2008). Lutz was among the founders and a lifelong board member of the Walter Eucken Institute, which still popularizes Eucken's intellectual legacy to this day (Veit-Bachmann 2003: 33–37; Hagemann 2008: 276–77). Furthermore, Lutz published several works on the history of economics and methodology in the context of the Freiburg school's research program, such as “Verstehen und Verständigung in der Wirtschaftswissenschaft” ([1967] 2008) as well as his book Politische Überzeugungen und Nationalökonomische Theorie (1971) containing methodological essays. His Theory of Interest (1967) has been considered one of the most illuminating works on the history of interest theory (Blaug [1962] 2003: 547).

His alignment with the Freiburg school was demonstrated at the second meeting of the Mont Pèlerin Society in 1948 when Lutz supported Eucken's position that the legal framework is foundational for the preservation of a competitive economic order. The legal framework requires proactive economic policy whose aim should be to dissolve cartels and tame large-scale corporations so that prices can be set by market competition rather than rent seekers. Thereby, the mechanism of the competitive order was to be preserved. Proactive economic policy of this kind was criticized by Anglo-Saxon economists. In his article “Observations on the Problem of Monopolies,” Lutz ([1956] 1989) noted that the cartel problem even drove a wedge among German economists. It escalated later in the Muthesius controversy wherein economists such as Hans Hellwig and Volkmar Muthesius criticized representatives of the Freiburg school as interventionists and proposing policy that would have been tolerated by the Nazis (Köhler and Nientiedt 2017; Kolev, Goldschmidt, and Hesse 2020).

The European period was equally productive for his wife. Given that Hayek's notes for Weber's Grundriß der Sozialökonomik were the basis for her doctoral thesis, it can be maintained that in a broader sense she also began her academic career in the context of socioeconomics and became isolated intellectually after their emigration to America, giving rise to her own internal Methodenstreit. James Douglas Brown (the Princeton dean) noted that “a factor in his return . . . was his English wife, who never seemed entirely happy this side of the water. She is an economist in her own right, and seemed restless in a man's university despite a good job” (Brown to Lanier, December 9, 1953).17

A glance at her published works conveys the impression that Vera also found peace following Friedrich's appointment at Zurich. Thereafter, her list of publications expanded significantly and included a number of works in technical economics and practical economic policy (Gusman 1984: 103–8). With the latter, she joined her husband's quest to promote the institutional framework of the competitive order à la Freiburg. In this respect, a geographic division of labor is discernable: Friedrich advised the Bank for International Settlement in Basel, along with the Swiss and German central banks, where he lent credence to voices espousing anti-Keynesian positions (Toniolo 2005: 676–77; Bernholz 2007: 154, 174; Richter 2014: 565–68), while Vera advised the Italian central bank and participated in discussions about French economic policy with her contributions (Lutz 1962, 1969; see also Masera 1983). Both were among the earliest members of the Mont Pèlerin Society, and Lutz was the only president of the society who served two terms (Hartwell 1995: 145–46, 151–56). Friedrich died in Zurich on October 4, 1975, Vera on August 20, 1976.

7. Conclusion

By reconstructing the development of Lutz's research program, my article demonstrates how a German economist educated in an academic environment still dominated by the historical school experienced Anglo-Saxon economics during the 1930s. Lutz's academic career began with a habilitation thesis criticizing business cycle theory as an approach to explain the emergence and persistence of economic crises. He recommended focusing on how the institutional framework providing the conditions for the exchange process could affect the persistence of economic crises. Hence, he argued for the construction of ideal types with whose help one could explain the occurrence and essence of macroeconomic phenomena. My article claims that this Freiburg school approach stood in the tradition of Max Weber's socioeconomics and introduced economic sociology as an intermediary layer between economic theory and economic history, thereby aiming to reconcile the competing factions of the Menger-Schmoller Methodenstreit (Kolev 2020: 47–48).

During his first Rockefeller Fellowship at LSE, Lutz recognized that his research in socioeconomics was diametrically opposed to Anglo-Saxon economics. He saw mathematical economics as an approach that was detached from reality. In his native Germany, however, the Nazi regime transformed German academia, forcing him to leave the country. In America, he witnessed the consolidation of American and English economic thought in the 1930s. He realized that an academic career in the New World would be virtually impossible if he did not acquire the mathematical skills necessary to conduct modern economic research. It gave rise to an internal Methodenstreit, during which he experienced pronounced anxiety to release the handbrake of emigration, because he was aware of the immense efforts required to learn these new methods; most importantly, however, he was convinced that without the methodological consideration of institutions, mathematical economics could never explain the occurrence and essence of macroeconomic phenomena.

With a methodological paper criticizing Keynes's General Theory published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, Lutz adapted to the dominant zeitgeist in American economics and at the same time made a grand entrance into American economics. Lutz's article took an intermediate position between technical Anglo-Saxon economics and the methodologically focused German economics tradition. While criticizing Keynes's savings-investment concept on methodological grounds, he nevertheless also stopped promoting the kind of institutional analysis he had conducted during his Freiburg years. In spite of his stellar career as a monetary theorist at Princeton and his placement within a network of top-level American economists, it was only at Zurich, where he taught the history and theory of socioeconomics, that Lutz found peace from the anxieties and tensions of his Methodenstreit.

This paper was written during my 2020–21 stay at the Center for the History of Political Economy at Duke University. I would like to thank Stefan Kolev and Mark McAdam for the careful reading and constructive criticism, as well as Uwe Dathe for introducing me to Friedrich Lutz's correspondence with Walter Eucken. Furthermore, I am grateful to Bruce Caldwell, Paul Dudenhefer, Nils Goldschmidt, Harald Hagemann, Kevin Hoover, Wendula von Klinckowstroem, Oliver Landmann, and Judith Syga-Dubois for their helpful comments and suggestions. The attendants of the Center for the History of Political Economy workshop on February 12, 2021, and of the Erfurt Graduate Seminar on the Future of Constitutional Economics on February 3, 2021, also provided critical feedback.

Notes

1.

Alumni and Faculty Offprint Collection, folder “Lutz, Friedrich” (box 29, folder 12), Princeton University.

2.

Unless stated otherwise, all translations from German are mine.

3.

Faculty of Law and State Sciences 1920–1963 Collection, folder “Friedrich A. Lutz” (box 110, folder 373), University of Freiburg Archives.

4.

All correspondence between Lutz and Fehling cited herein can be found in August Wilhelm Fehling Papers, folder “Friedrich A. Lutz” (box 1106, folder 40), German Federal Archives Koblenz.

5.

All correspondence between Lutz and Eucken cited herein can be found in Walter Eucken Papers, folder “Friedrich A. Lutz,” Thüringer Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Jena, University of Jena.

6.

Hayek ([1944] 2006: 196) expressed his indignation in The Road to Serfdom how, “with few exceptions,” German scholars and scientists supported the doctrine of the Nazis, which “is one of the most depressing and shameful spectacles in the whole history of the rise of National-Socialism.” These few exceptions could be the scholars at the University of Freiburg because later Hayek remembered that Freiburg was among the few German universities during the Nazi regime that was able to preserve the independence of its intellectual life (Nobel Prize–Winning Economist1983: 362).

7.

The first sentence was translated by Bernholz (1989: 196).

8.

Berlin Document Center, Documents, DS/WI 35, Lutz Friedrich, Archival Signature R 9361-VI/1872, p. 2194

9.

Berlin Document Center, Documents, DS/WI 35, Lutz Friedrich, Archival Signature R 9361-VI/1872, p. 2198.

10.

Friedrich A. Hayek Papers, folder “Gottfried Haberler” (box 94, folder 6), Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

11.

Officers’ Diaries, Diarist: “John Van Sickle” (record group 12, box 482), Rockefeller Archive Center.

12.

There are only two letters in which Lutz mentioned Franz Böhm’s case in perfunctory fashion; one might conclude from them that Eucken tried to inform Lutz about Böhm’s dismissal: the first letter is from July 19, 1937, the second from December 24, 1937.

13.

Oskar Morgenstern Diaries, Jan. 21, 1928, to Aug. 3, 1944, Oskar Morgenstern Papers, 1866–1992, bulk dates 1917–77, box 13, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Duke University.

14.

Alumni and Faculty Offprint Collection, folder “Lutz, Friedrich” (box 29, folder 12), Princeton University.

15.

The full list of Lutz’s publications in technical economics can be found in Lutz 1971.

16.

Friedrich A. Lutz’s unpublished lecture, Walter Eucken Papers, folder “Friedrich A. Lutz,” Thüringer Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Jena, University of Jena.

17.

Alumni and Faculty Offprint Collection, folder “Lutz, Friedrich” (box 29, folder 12), Princeton University.

References

Albert, Hans.
2009
. “
Zur Wissenschaftslehre und Methodologie Walter Euckens
.” In
Phänomenologie und die Ordnung der Wirtschaft: Edmund Husserl, Rudolf Eucken, Walter Eucken, Michel Foucault
, edited by Hans-Helmuth Gander, Nils Goldschmidt, and Uwe Dathe,
83
102
.
Würzburg
:
Ergon
.
American Economic Association
.
1944
.
Readings in Business Cycle Theory: Selected by a Committee of the American Economic Association
. Committee chaired by Gottfried Haberler.
Homewood, Ill.
:
Richard D. Irwin
.
American Economic Association
.
1951
.
Readings in Monetary Theory: Selected by a Committee of the American Economic Association
. Committee chaired by Friedrich A. Lutz and Lloyd W. Mints.
Homewood, Ill.
:
Richard D. Irwin
.
Barkai, Haim.
1991
. “
Schmoller on Money and the Monetary Dimension of Economics
.”
History of Political Economy
23
, no.
1
:
13
39
.
Benes, Michael, and Jaromir Kumhof.
2012
. “
The Chicago Plan Revisited
.” IMF Working Paper 2012/202.
Berman, Edward H.
1983
.
The Influence of the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller Foundations on American Foreign Policy: The Ideology of Philanthropy
.
Albany
:
SUNY Press
.
Bernholz, Peter.
1989
. “
Ordo-Liberals and the Control of the Money Supply
.” In
German Neo-liberals and the Social Market Economy
, edited by Alan Peacock and Hans Willgerodt,
191
215
.
New York
:
St. Martin's Press
.
Bernholz, Peter.
2007
. “
Die Nationalbank 1945–1982: Von der Devisenbann-Wirtschaft zur Geldmengensteuerung bei flexiblen Wechselkursen
.” In
Die Schweizerische Nationalbank 1907–2007
,
119
214
.
Zurich
:
Schweizerische Nationalbank
.
Blaug, Mark. (
1962
) 2003.
Economic Theory in Retrospect
.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
.
Blümle, Gerold, and Nils Goldschmidt.
2006
. “
From Economic Stability to Social Order: The Debate about Business Cycle Theory in the 1920s and Its Relevance for the Development of Theories of Social Order by Lowe, Hayek, and Eucken
.”
European Journal of the History of Economic Thought
13
, no.
4
:
543
70
.
Böhm, Franz, Walter Eucken, and Hans Grossmann-Doerth. (
1936
) 1989. “
The Ordo Manifesto of 1936
.” In
Germany's Social Market Economy: Origins and Evolution
, edited by Alan Peacock and Hans Willgerodt,
15
26
.
London
:
Palgrave Macmillan
.
Boulding, Kenneth E.
1953
. “
A Note on the Theory of Investment of the Firm
.”
Kyklos
6
, no.
1
:
77
82
.
Brintzinger, Klaus-Rainer.
1996
.
Die Nationalökonomie an den Universitäten Freiburg, Heidelberg und Tübingen, 1918–1945
.
Frankfurt
:
Peter Lang
.
Caldwell, Bruce.
2011
. “
The Chicago School, Hayek, and Neoliberalism
.” In
Building Chicago Economics: New Perspectives on the History of America's Most Powerful Economics Program
, edited by Robert Van Horn, Philip Mirowski, and Thomas A. Stapleford,
301
14
.
New York
:
Cambridge University Press
.
Caldwell, Bruce, and Hansjörg Klausinger.
2022
.
Hayek: A Life, 1899–1950
.
Chicago
:
University of Chicago Press
.
Chandler, Lester V.
1978
. “
The Department of Economics
.” In
A Princeton Companion
, edited by Alexander Leitch,
149
51
.
Princeton, N.J.
:
Princeton University Press
.
Craver, Earlene.
1986
. “
Patronage and the Directions of Research in Economics: The Rockefeller Foundation in Europe, 1924–1938
.”
Minerva
24
, nos.
2–3
:
205
22
.
Cubitt, Charlotte E.
2006
.
A Life of Friedrich August von Hayek
.
Gamlingay
:
Authors OnLine
.
Dal Pont Legrand, Muriel, and Harald Hagemann.
2013
. “
Lutz and Equilibrium Theories of the Business Cycle
.”
Œconomia
3
, no.
2
:
241
62
.
Dathe, Uwe, and Nils Goldschmidt.
2003
. “
Wie der Vater, so der Sohn: Neuere Erkenntnisse zu Walter Euckens Leben und Werk anhand des Nachlasses von Rudolf Eucken in Jena
.”
ORDO–Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft
54
:
49
74
.
Ellis, Howard S. (
1934
) 1937.
German Monetary Theory, 1905–1933
.
Cambridge, Mass.
:
Harvard University Press
.
Eucken, Walter.
1923
.
Kritische Betrachtungen zum deutschen Geldproblem
.
Jena
:
G. Fischer
.
Eucken, Walter.
1929
. “
Kredit und Konjunktur
.” In
Wandlungen des Kapitalismus: Auslandsanleihen, Kredit und Konjunktur. Verhandlungen des Vereins für Socialpolitik in Zürich 1928
, edited by Franz Boese,
287
305
, 386–91.
Munich
:
Duncker & Humblot
.
Eucken, Walter. (
1940
) 1950.
The Foundations of Economics: History and Theory in the Analysis of Economic Reality
.
London
:
William Hodge
.
Faßbender, Siegfried.
1939
. “
Unsere Aufgabe: Replik
.”
FinanzArchiv
6
, no.
1
:
158
60
.
Faßbender, Siegfried.
1943
.
Nationalsozialistische Wirtschaft und völkische Freiheit
.
Leipzig
:
Lutzeyer
.
Goldschmidt, Nils.
2013
. “
Walter Eucken's Place in the History of Ideas
.”
Review of Austrian Economics
26
, no.
2
:
127
47
.
Goldschmidt, Nils, and Michael Wohlgemuth.
2008
. “
Zur Einführung: Unsere Aufgabe (1936)
.” In
Grundtexte zur Freiburger Tradition der Ordnungsökonomik
, edited by Nils Goldschmidt and Michael Wohlgemuth,
21
25
.
Tübingen
:
Mohr Siebeck
.
Grudev, Lachezar.
2019
. “
Friedrich A. Lutz’ Epistemological and Methodological Messages during the German-Language Business Cycle Debate
.”
Journal of Contextual Economics–Schmollers Jahrbuch
139
, no.
1
:
1
28
.
Grudev, Lachezar.
2020
. “
Walter Eucken's Concept of Economic Order and Business Cycle Analysis
.”
ORDO–Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft
71
:
17
45
.
Grunenberg, Antonia. (
2008
) 2016.
Hannah Arendt und Martin Heidegger: Geschichte einer Liebe
.
Munich
:
Piper
.
Gusman, Rosaria G.
1984
. “
Note bio-bibliographiche 1912–1976
.” In
Moneta, dualismo e pianificazione nel pensiero di Vera C. Lutz
, edited by Fondazione Luigi Einaudi,
89
110
.
Bologna
:
Società editrice il Mulino
.
Haberler, Gottfried.
1944
. Introduction to
Readings in Business Cycle Theory: Selected by a Committee of the American Economic Association
,
xii
xvi
. Committee chaired by Gottfried Haberler.
Homewood, Ill.
:
Richard D. Irwin
.
Haberler, Gottfried.
1984
. “
Vera e Friedrich Lutz: Una famosa coppia di economisti dei nostri tempi
.” In
Moneta, dualismo e pianificazione nel pensiero di Vera C. Lutz
, edited by Fondazione Luigi Einaudi,
47
53
.
Bologna
:
Società editrice il Mulino
.
Hagemann, Harald.
1997
. Introduction to
Zur deutschsprachigen wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Emigration nach 1933
, edited by Harald Hagemann,
7
36
.
Marburg
:
Metropolis
.
Hagemann, Harald.
2002
. Introduction to
Equilibrium and the Business Cycle
, edited by Harald Hagemann,
vii
xxvii
. Vol.
4
of Business Cycle Theory: Selected Texts, 1860–1939.
London
:
Pickering & Chatto
.
Hagemann, Harald.
2008
. “
Zur Einführung: Friedrich A. Lutz (1901–1975)
.” In
Grundtexte zur Freiburger Tradition der Ordnungsökonomik
, edited by Nils Goldschmidt and Michael Wohlgemuth,
273
78
.
Tübingen
:
Mohr Siebeck
.
Hartwell, Ronald M.
1995
.
History of the Mont Pelerin Society
.
Indianapolis
:
Liberty Fund
.
Hayek, Friedrich A. (
1941
) 1950.
The Pure Theory of Capital
.
Chicago
:
University of Chicago Press
.
Hayek, Friedrich A. (
1942
) 2010. “
Scientism and the Study of Society
.” In
Studies on the Abuse and Decline of Reason: Text and Documents
, edited by Bruce Caldwell,
77
166
. Vol.
13
of The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek.
Chicago
:
University of Chicago Press
.
Hayek, Friedrich A. (
1944
) 2006.
The Road to Serfdom
.
London
:
Routledge
.
Hayek, Friedrich A. (
1963
) 1995. “
The Economics of the 1930s as Seen from London
.” In
Contra Keynes and Cambridge: Essays, Correspondence
, edited by Bruce Caldwell,
49
73
. Vol.
9
of The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek.
Chicago
:
University of Chicago Press
.
Herrmann-Pillath, Carsten.
1994
. “
Methodological Aspects of Eucken's Work
.”
Journal of Economic Studies
21
, no.
4
:
46
60
.
Hicks, J. R., and R. G. D. Allen.
1934
. “
A Reconsideration of the Theory of Value
.” Pt. 1.
Economica
, n.s.,
1
, no.
1
:
52
76
.
Hicks, John R.
1984
. “
La regione e il mondo
.” In
Moneta, dualismo e pianificazione nel pensiero di Vera C. Lutz
, edited by Fondazione Luigi Einaudi,
55
62
.
Bologna
:
Società editrice il Mulino
.
Howson, Susan.
2011
.
Lionel Robbins
.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
.
Janssen, Hauke. (
1998
) 2012.
Nationalökonomie und Nationalsozialismus: Die deutsche Volkswirtschaftslehre in den dreißiger Jahren des 20. Jahrhunderts
.
Marburg
:
Metropolis
.
Keynes, John Maynard.
1936
.
The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money
.
London
:
Macmillan
.
Klausinger, Hansjörg.
2013
. Introduction to pt. 1 of
Business Cycles
, edited by Hansjörg Klausinger,
1
45
. Vol.
7
of The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek.
Chicago
:
University of Chicago Press
.
Klinckowstroem, Wendula Gräfin von.
2000
. “
Walter Eucken: Eine biographische Skizze
.” In
Walter Eucken und sein Werk: Rückblick auf den Vordenker der sozialen Marktwirtschaft
, edited by Lüder Gerken,
53
115
.
Tübingen
:
Mohr Siebeck
.
Köhler, Ekkehard A., and Stefan Kolev.
2013
. “
The Conjoint Quest for a Liberal Positive Program: ‘Old Chicago,’ Freiburg, and Hayek
.” In
F. A. Hayek and the Modern Economy: Economic Organization and Activity
, edited by Sandra J. Peart and David M. Levy,
211
28
.
New York
:
Palgrave Macmillan
.
Köhler, Ekkehard A., and Daniel Nientiedt.
2017
. “
The Muthesius Controversy: A Tale of Two Liberalisms
.”
History of Political Economy
49
, no.
4
:
607
30
.
Kolev, Stefan.
2020
. “
The Legacy of Max Weber and the Early Austrians
.”
Review of Austrian Economics
33
, nos.
1–2
:
33
54
.
Kolev, Stefan.
2023
. “
When Liberty Presupposes Order: F. A. Hayek's Contextual Ordoliberalism
.”
Journal of the History of Economic Thought
, forthcoming.
Kolev, Stefan, Nils Goldschmidt, and Jan-Otmar Hesse.
2020
. “
Debating Liberalism: Walter Eucken, F. A. Hayek, and the Early History of the Mont Pèlerin Society
.”
Review of Austrian Economics
33
:
433
63
.
Kolev, Stefan, and Ekkehard A. Köhler.
2022
. “
Transatlantic Roads to Mont Pèlerin: ‘Old Chicago’ and Freiburg in a World of Disintegrating Orders
.”
History of Political Economy
54
, no.
4
:
745
84
.
Köster, Roman.
2011
.
Die Wissenschaft der Außenseiter: Die Krise der Nationalökonomie in der Weimarer Republik
.
Göttingen
:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
.
Lange, Oskar.
1939
. “
Saving and Investment: Saving in Process Analysis
.”
Quarterly Journal of Economics
53
, no.
4
:
620
22
.
Lenel, Hans O.
1976
. “
Zum Gedenken an Friedrich A. Lutz
.”
ORDO–Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft
27
:
3
5
.
Leonard, Robert.
2010
.
Von Neumann, Morgenstern, and the Creation of Game Theory: From Chess to Social Science, 1900–1960
.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
.
Lerner, Abba.
1939
. “
Saving and Investment: Definitions, Assumptions, Objectives
.”
Quarterly Journal of Economics
53
, no.
4
:
611
19
.
Löwe, Adolf.
1926
. “
Wie ist Konjunkturtheorie überhaupt möglich?
Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv
24
, no.
2
:
165
97
.
Lutz, Friedrich A.
1927
.
Der Kampf um den Kapitalbegriff in der neuesten Zeit: Inaugural-Dissertation an der Eberhards-Karls-Universität Tübingen
.
Tübingen
:
Eugen Göbel
.
Lutz, Friedrich A.
1932
.
Das Konjunkturproblem in der Nationalökonomie
.
Jena
:
Gustav Fischer
.
Lutz, Friedrich A.
1935a
. “
Goldwährung und Wirtschaftsordnung
.”
Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv
41
, no.
1
:
224
51
.
Lutz, Friedrich A.
1935b
. “
Zur Theorie des Geldmarktes: Zugleich eine Analyse des englischen Geldmarktes bei freier Währung
.”
Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv
42
, no.
2
:
216
47
.
Lutz, Friedrich A.
1936
. “
Über die Umlaufsgeschwindigkeit des Geldes
.”
Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik
144
, no.
1
:
385
409
.
Lutz, Friedrich A. (
1936
) 1962.
Das Grundproblem der Geldverfassung
. In Geld und Währung: Gesammelte Abhandlungen, edited by Karl Friedrich Maier,
28
102
.
Tübingen
:
J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck)
.
Lutz, Friedrich A.
1938
. “
The Outcome of the Saving-Investment Discussion
.”
Quarterly Journal of Economics
52
, no.
4
:
588
614
.
Lutz, Friedrich A.
1939
. “
Saving and Investment: Final Comment
.”
Quarterly Journal of Economics
53
, no.
4
:
627
31
.
Lutz, Friedrich A.
1940a
. “
Die Grundlagen der Nationalökonomie by W. Eucken
.”
American Economic Review
30
, no.
3
:
587
88
.
Lutz, Friedrich A.
1940b
. “
The Structure of Interest Rates
.”
Quarterly Journal of Economics
55
, no.
3
:
36
63
.
Lutz, Friedrich A.
1943
. “
Professor Hayek's Theory of Interest Rates
.”
Economica
10
, no.
40
:
302
10
.
Lutz, Friedrich A.
1944
. “
History and Theory in Economics
.”
Economica
11
, no.
44
:
210
14
.
Lutz, Friedrich A.
1945
. “
The Interest Rate and Investment in a Dynamic Economy
.”
American Economic Review
35
, no.
5
:
811
30
.
Lutz, Friedrich A. (
1956
)
1989
. “
Observations on the Problem of Monopolies
.” In
Germany's Social Market Economy: Origins and Evolution
, edited by Alan Peacock and Hans Willgerodt,
152
70
.
London
:
Palgrave Macmillan
.
Lutz, Friedrich A.
1967
.
The Theory of Interest
.
Dordrecht
:
D. Reidel
.
Lutz, Friedrich A. (
1967
) 2008. “
Verstehen und Verständigung in der Wirtschaftswissenschaft
.” In
Grundtexte zur Freiburger Tradition der Ordnungsökonomik
, edited by Nils Goldschmidt and Michael Wohlgemuth,
278
98
.
Tübingen
:
Mohr Siebeck
.
Lutz, Friedrich A.
1971
.
Politische Überzeugungen und nationalökonomische Theorie: Zürcher Vorträge
. Edited by Alfred Bosch and Reinhold Veit.
Tübingen
:
J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck)
.
Lutz, Friedrich A., and Douglas C. Hague, ed.
1961
.
The Theory of Capital
.
London
:
Macmillan
.
Lutz, Friedrich A., and Vera Lutz.
1951
.
The Theory of Investment of the Firm
.
Princeton, N.J.
:
Princeton University Press
.
Lutz, Vera C.
1962
.
Italy: A Study in Economic Development
.
Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
.
Lutz, Vera C.
1969
.
Central Planning for the Market Economy: An Analysis of the French Theory and Experience
.
London
:
Longmans
.
Masera, Rainer A.
1983
. “
Inflation, Stabilization and Economic Recovery in Italy after the War: Vera Lutz's Assessment
.”
Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review
144
:
29
50
.
Nobel Prize–Winning Economist: Friedrich A. von Hayek
.
1983
.
Los Angeles
:
Regents of the University of California
.
Richter, Rudolf.
2014
. “
Die Geldpolitik im Spiegel der wissenschaftlichen Diskussion
.” In
Fünfzig Jahre Deutsche Mark: Notenbank und Währung in Deutschland seit 1948
, edited by Deutsche Bundesbank,
561
608
.
Munich
:
C. H. Beck
.
Rieter, Heinz, and Matthias Schmolz.
1993
. “
The Ideas of German Ordoliberalism, 1938–45: Pointing the Way to a New Economic Order
.”
European Journal of the History of Economic Thought
1
, no.
1
:
87
114
.
Ritzmann, Franz.
1976
. “
Professor Dr. Friedrich A. Lutz
.” In
Rektoratsrede und Jahresbericht 1975/76
,
79
81
.
Zurich
:
University of Zurich
.
Rühl, Christof.
1994
. “
The Transformation of the Business Cycle Theory: Hayek, Lucas, and a Change in the Notion of Equilibrium
.” In
Money and Business Cycles: The Economics of F. A. Hayek
, edited by Marina Colonna and Harald Hagemann,
1
:
168
202
.
Aldershot
:
Edward Elgar
.
Scherer, Frederic M.
2000
. “
The Emigration of German-Speaking Economists after 1933
.”
Journal of Economic Literature
38
, no.
3
:
614
26
.
Schmoller, Gustav. (
1893
) 1949.
Die Volkswirtschaft, die Volkswirtschaftslehre und ihre Methoden
.
Frankfurt
:
Vittorio Klostermann
.
Schwartz, Pedro.
1984
. “
Central Bank Monopoly in the History of Economic Thought: A Century of Myopia in England
.” In
Currency Competition and Monetary Union
, edited by Pascal Salin,
95
126
.
The Hague
:
Martinus Nijhoff
.
Silber, William.
2013
.
Volcker: The Triumph of Persistence
.
New York
:
Bloomsbury Press
.
Smith, Vera C.
1935
. “
Free Banking, or A Reconsideration of the Historical and Analytical Basis of Central Banking
.” PhD diss.,
London School of Economics
.
Smith, Vera C. (
1936
) 1990.
The Rationale of Central Banking and the Free Banking Alternative
.
Indianapolis
:
Liberty Fund
.
Streissler, Erich W.
1994
. “
The Influence of German and Austrian Economics on Joseph A. Schumpeter
.” In
Schumpeter in the History of Ideas
, edited by Yuichi Shionoya and Mark Perlman,
13
38
.
Ann Arbor
:
University of Michigan Press
.
Syga-Dubois, Judith.
2019
.
Wissenschaftliche Philanthropie und transatlantischer Austausch in der Zwischenkriegszeit: Die sozialwissenschaftlichen Förderprogramme der Rockefeller-Stiftungen in Deutschland
.
Vienna
:
Böhlau
.
Toniolo, Gianni.
2005
.
Central Bank Cooperation at the Bank for International Settlements, 1930–1973
.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
.
Vanberg, Viktor J.
2008
. “
Zur Einführung: Franz Böhm (1895–1977)
.” In
Grundtexte zur Freiburger Tradition der Ordnungsökonomik
, edited by Nils Goldschmidt and Michael Wohlgemuth,
43
48
.
Tübingen
:
Mohr Siebeck
.
Vanberg, Viktor J.
2013
. “
Hayek in Freiburg
.” In
Influences, from Mises to Bartley
, edited by Robert Leeson,
93
122
. Pt. 1 of Hayek: A Collaborative Biography.
Basingstoke
:
Palgrave Macmillan
.
Veit-Bachmann, Verena.
2002
. “
Unsere Aufgabe: Friedrich A. Lutz (1901–1975) zum hundertsten Geburtstag
.”
ORDO–Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft
53
:
155
67
.
Veit-Bachmann, Verena.
2003
. “
Friedrich A. Lutz: Leben und Werk
.” In
Währungsordnung und Inflation: Zum Gedenken an Friedrich A. Lutz (1901–1975)
, edited by Viktor J. Vanberg,
9
43
.
Tübingen
:
Mohr Siebeck
.
Volcker, Paul, and Christine Harper.
2018
.
Keeping at It: The Quest for Sound Money and Good Government
.
New York
:
Public Affairs
.
Yeager, Leland B.
1990
. Preface to
The Rationale of Central Banking and the Free Banking Alternative
, by Vera C. Smith,
xiii
xxvi
.
Indianapolis
:
Liberty Fund
.
Zelmanovitz, Leonidas.
2019
. “
Vera Smith: The Contrarian View
.” Library of Economics and Liberty. https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2019/ZelmanovitzSmithV.html.